You mean late 19th century, even thought the term wasn’t coined until the 20th century and almost everything in the public mind about banana republics comes from the 20th century.
Others have already demolished the rest of your fantasy.
Well, they did try that, so it’s not too far-fetched. 
Just to clarify, $36,641 was the median household income. Individual income will, of course, be lower , but being the poorest of the 50 states is like being the 50th best player in the NBA: you’re still pretty freakin’ good at basketball.
They were in a confederation with ten other states (albeit a dysfunctional, squabbling one), so they weren’t trying to be independent or sovereign per se.
One of the big points of the Confederacy was that the constituent states didn’t give up their sovereignty. From the Preamble to the Constitution of the CSA:
The Confederate States retained, among other things, the power to impeach (Confederate) federal judges and other officers assigned to them.
I read that line as reflecting that the six states whose delegates wrote and signed the Provisional Confederate Constitution, which contains the same phrase, were, having already left the Union, (Dec. 20, 1860 (South Carolina) - February 26, 1861 (Louisiana)), temporarily “free agents”, so to speak, before subsuming their sovereignty in the new Confederacy on Feb. 8th (Provisional) and March 11 (Permanent).
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
The Confederate States retained, among other things, the power to impeach (Confederate) federal judges and other officers assigned to them.
[/QUOTE]
Certainly, while in several ways the Confederate Constitution granted more power to the states than the U.S. one did, they weren’t sovereign or independent. They were each subject to the acts of the Confederate Congress, including taxes between states, and being prohibited from barring any citizen from the right to travel through another Confederate state, and so forth.
Correction: January 26th for Louisiana. All six states had seceded at least 13 days before creating the Confederacy.
$55 trillion sounds more accurate and I guess I wasn’t too far off estimating the top 400 would be around 3~5% of the total. Not 50% as agreed.
Which is still the lowest median income in the US. Anyway, I would have thought measuring median individual net worth would be more revealing.
Great for 50% of Mississippians earning that amount and above. I guess that puts half the state into the 99% world wide.
In all fairness, Mississippi was still heavily dependent on cotton into the late 20th century.
The phrase was coined in 1904, and Mississippi was still a cotton republic in 1904. See the link provided above.
I’m a bit surprised at the reaction to my opinion. I was just pointing out that as a whole, the US couldn’t be considered a Banana Republic as it’s just too big and that taken individually, some states could possibly be considered. Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana come to mind because I find these states to be poorly governed. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there was a fair amount of corruption going on in those states as well, and if they happened to have been independent, they could even be third world countries. The reason they are not is because they are part of the US and they receive more federal money than they pay in taxes.
[QUOTE=NiceGuyJack]
I’m a bit surprised at the reaction to my opinion. I was just pointing out that as a whole, the US couldn’t be considered a Banana Republic as it’s just too big and that taken individually, some states could possibly be considered. Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana come to mind because I find these states to be poorly governed. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there was a fair amount of corruption going on in those states as well, and if they happened to have been independent, they could even be third world countries. The reason they are not is because they are part of the US and they receive more federal money than they pay in taxes.
[/QUOTE]
And I’m a bit surprised you continue to miss the point…which is that, while it’s your opinion that those states are banana republics, you’ve not demonstrated anything more than that it’s your opinion. Sure, if we speculate that in a fantasy universe they were independent nation states on their own they MIGHT be banana republics, in THIS universe they aren’t.
As to receiving more in federal moneys than they bring in wrt taxes, do you also consider Florida a banana republic? What about Maine? Virginia? Oregon? How about Maryland? New Mexico…? Ok, I’ll give you that one…New Mexico actually IS a banana republic (well, a green chili republic at least :p).
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0706.pdf
36% of Mississippi households earn less than $25k/year and an additional 26% are between 25k-50k.
This website says that 80% of the world makes less than $10/day, or less than $3,600/year.
So even the very poor parts of Mississippi is far, far richer than more than 80% of the world.
I have explained what I based my opinion on and you keep ignoring it.
Poorest state, poorly run state, limited commodities, infrastructure paid for by the federal government and historical facts.
My opinion may be flawed, but I base it on observable data.
And just so it is clear, I am in no way advocating or fantasizing that these states are independent.
I was merely speculating that if history had been different and these states had been independent, it could be conceivable that they could have been Banana Republics. In fact quite likely considering the similar conditions in the late 19th century to the countries like Honduras at the time.
In no way am I saying that this is fact. It is purely a speculation of what could possibly be if they had been independent.
If you care to speculate why you think Mississippi would not have been a Banana Republic if they had been independent since the Civil War, then please go ahead, I would be interested in your opinion.
If your only point is, they are not independent and so you are wrong, then :smack: you got me there! Amazing observational clarity.
I agree. Not sure what the argument is here.
That even the poor parts of MS are far wealthier than your standard “banana republic”.
They are poorly run (well, Mississippi is, for sure) in comparison to THE OTHER STATES IN THE US. As another poster up thread commented this is like looking at the worst player in the NBA compared to the others. Yeah, he’s the worst player in the NBA, for sure…but he’s IN the NBA, making him one of the best basketball players in the world. Comparing those states, as they are today, to other 3rd world or actual banana republic nations, however, clearly shows they aren’t in the same league…they are merely poor in comparison to other states in the union. Mississippi has a viable infrastructure, the standards of living in Mississippi is higher than in many LARGE nations (compare it to, oh, say China, India and Russia some time for instance), they aren’t reliant on a single crop (and haven’t been for over a century), aren’t run by a powerful autocracy or any of the other features that constitute a banana republic…except in YOUR mind. THAT’S the point I’m trying to make here.
Or, instead of simply giving a list of states YOU think have aspects of being banana republics, why don’t you show some metrics that you think are relevant to your assertion? Simply saying that they aren’t a banana republic because they are part of the US is pretty worthless, since they ARE part of the…they pay their state and federal taxes and receive the benefits of being part of the US. You say you are basing your assertion on ‘observable data’, but thus far you haven’t produced any of it to back up your assertion.
No, that wasn’t my only or even primary point. 
Fair enough, and I don’t think we need to take this hijack any further. 
There is no indication in the link that cotton was dependent on cotton any later than the 1930s.
They don’t want metrics and they’ve said so. Even the OP, dataguy, objected when data was brought to rebut the point.
But, yeah, next time I drive on I-20 through Jackson, MS on my way to the billion-dollar Nissan factory, I’ll stop at a Starbucks before I get there and take a look around at what a third-world country looks like.
Cafe latte in hand, of course. There’s no need to be savages about this.
I-20 being that old goat trail that passes for a ‘road’, right? That Nissan factory makes cotton, so you can see how a REAL banana republic operates on the one crop system. Watch out for the warlords bandits while you are out there…and all the guerrilla fighters and insurgents in the area.
Still a digression, but…
SIPRI 2009. I must say, on reviewing it I was surprised to note that Western and Central Europe do not only outspend Russia and China…but the totals of Asia, Oceania and Eastern Europe. Or the total of Africa, Asia, South America and Oceania. Middle East excluded.
**
My point is: Europes military spending is vastly over the top** for any defense need. It is not remotly correct to state that Europe derives any economic benefit from American militry presence, because that would imply that without it, Europe would need to spend more money on the military.
And defense is the point of military spending in the developed wolrd. It is not the 19th century when gunboats went out to secure markets!
Exactly why the American military presence remains could be a subject for discussion, pork-barrel, electoral considerations, military industries needing customers… but Europe is certainly very far past the point of diminishing returns on spending.
Um… I’m not sure you are following the maths here. The US spends 18 % of GDP on healthcare, and just under 5 on military matters. Europe spends 9 % on healthcare and 1,5 - 2,5 on military budgets. Even if the military spending wasn’t well over the top on both, where do you think the money for social programs come from? 2-3 % savings n military budgets or 9 b% on health care? Do you have any idea on how much money goes to social programs? There is simply no way Europe coud save enough money on the difference in miltary spending.
My point here is: That saying that the US military umbrella in an way enables Europes social programs ignores the fundamental maths of the situation.
As for the notion that you need a military to protect trade and resources far away, the notion that such an investment would pay off is so counter-intuitive that I’m going to need a lot of cites to take it seriously. In any case, Europe has clearly crossed off that option anyway, after having had quite a bit of experience with it.
Haven’t said otherwise. Not as a part of the US for sure.
Hey! What a coincidence. There is a billion dollar Nissan factory in the Philippines too! And I always get a Starbucks coffee in the morning when visiting the office in Makati City, Metro-Manila’s business district. Almost all the other Japanese and Korean auto manufacturers are present in the Philippines in one form or another. Even Ford has a factory there.
Same thing in Bangkok, I can get a Starbucks on the ground floor of the office building there and Thailand have even more auto factories than the Philippines. If having a Starbucks and a foreign owned billion dollar auto-factory represents an advanced economy, well then Mississippi would compare with Philippines and Thailand. :rolleyes: